Forum:2015-02-06 (Friday)
Discussion for comic for . Veni, vidi, wiki (I came, I saw, I edited) ---- Discussion of Today's Page Agatha seems a little worried in the last panel. I would be, too, if her plan really requires Martellus to act appropriately. But perhaps she is just calling the Beast's attention to him so Martellus can act as a distraction once again. -- William Ansley (talk) 22:54, February 7, 2015 (UTC) : I'd think it's more about standing almost in the gaping maw of the Beast, who seems to be a bit upset at the moment. Just trying to get Martellus to focus on the matter at hand. Also to note basic Spark behavior, "They're smart enough to build death rays, and dumb enough to turn them on Armies, all by themselves." AndyAB99 (talk) 11:29, February 8, 2015 (UTC) :: Martelllus reveals his plan in lurid detail in the bottom left panel in . -- Billy Catringer (talk) 15:02, February 8, 2015 (UTC) ::: Yes, I remembered that page, but my impression was that Martellus was offering a refinement to the plan proposed by Agatha and Brother Matthias, and Agatha accepted it as such. After all, Martellus's contribution only makes sense as part of a coordinated magnetic field attack. So I would have expected that Martellus's plan, on the page that you are referring to above, was already used as part of and therefore that cannot be what Agatha is referring to. ::: If it does turn out that they were saving Martellus's contribution as a "Plan B", then the sequence of events in this comic won't make sense to me, but it won't be the first time that was the case. -- William Ansley (talk) 20:18, February 8, 2015 (UTC) ::: That's exactly what Agatha was reminding Martellus of. His contribution to the plan was how to lead the Beast once it was contained. It can still be led or, at least, have it's attention focused elsewhere. Agatha would prefer not being the only one engaging the Beast right now. She asked Brother Ulm to keep up the attack, keep it expending energy, keep it off balance. AndyAB99 (talk) 21:07, February 8, 2015 (UTC) Chronology & Titles The Foglios have gone and done it! They have named volume 1 of act 2 and they have decided to start using a new format for their titles, as they have sometimes threatenend to do: Girl Genius: The Beast of the Rails. Given that the full titles of the previous volumes have always been prefixed with, at least on the spines of the printed books, Girl Genius Book One (or Two, Three, etc.), I wonder how they will refer to the volume/book number in the titles of the volumes of act 2. And will we refer to this book on this wiki as The Beast of the Rails or Girl Genius: The Beast of the Rails, which is a bit redundant and awkward. I am asking because it is now time to rename the chronology and other pages on this wiki with the new volume title. -- William Ansley (talk) 05:16, February 6, 2015 (UTC) : I thing the approach we took before was reasonable: Make the page "Girl Genius: The Beast of the Rails" (assuming the name sticks). Must links would drop the GG:, In List of Published Volumes the current "Agatha Heterodyne and the …" would become a separate table row, and a new "Girl Genius: …" row would be added. : It is interesting to have a title and planned Kickstarter so early. Usually at this point they would be announcing obvious joke titles, and the real title and publication plans would come months later. It's almost like they hired a business manager. Argadi (talk) 10:29, February 6, 2015 (UTC) :: I agree. The fact the the first line of the chronology entries for act 2 are going to look like this, "Volume Summary: Girl Genius: The Beast of the Rails" was bothering me because it isn't clear whether "Girl Genius:" is part of the title of the book or not, but I think adding italics (well, obliques, really) as I just did makes what is title and what is not clear enough. :: I don't expect the Foglios to change their minds about this title; they have announced it to allow their book to be nominated for the Hugo by name, so it would cause them at least at some inconvenience to choose a different title later. --William Ansley (talk) 13:24, February 6, 2015 (UTC) ::: speaking of volumes i have several of the paper volumes and volume three actually says "vol thee" on the spine. (talk) 05:01, February 8, 2015 (UTC)]] :::: Interesting. Are you saying that your copy of volume three has "volume three" on the spine in the same location that the other volumes have "book four" or "book five", for example? There have been multiple printings of some of the paperback volumes of the Girl Genius graphic novels, and the Foglios have made some changes between printings, but the only difference I have noticed on the covers is that the newest printings have the volume number on the front, in the upper right corner. -- William Ansley (talk) 15:57, February 8, 2015 (UTC) ::::: no i am saying that it says "thee" instead of "Three" Ellenb (talk) 00:55, February 11, 2015 (UTC) :::::: Ah, even more interesting! You have my apologies for not reading your original message more carefully. A typo like that on the book cover must have driven the Foglios crazy. If the book is handy and you don't mind taking the trouble, could you please take a look at the second page of the book, where the copyright information is? Near the bottom of that page you should see an indication of which printing your copy belongs to. Mine, in which the error you describe has been corrected, is from the third printing. Also, do you recall if there were any errors in the printing of the double-page spreads in your copy of volume 3? I am very interested in the history of how pages were added to the various print editions of Girl Genius to adjust the pagination of the spreads, and, if I recall correctly, I have been told that an earlier printing of volume 3 had such an error and an additional page had to be added to a later printing. The two pages pages added to the third printing of volume three were these: and Are both of these pages present in your copy? I realize I am probably asking too much and I understand if you don't have the time to answer all of these questions. -- William Ansley (talk) 13:12, February 11, 2015 (UTC)